Wow. One bad idea compounded with another.
They tried to float that back in 1990 and 1991 as well.
The “reasoning” was this: “The A-10 is designed to survive hits, the F-16 is designed to avoid them.”
The AirForce fighter jock who said it had this sneer on his smug face.
I, for one, would love to have seen that sneer get wiped from his face the first time he tried to do CAS in an F-16 under the same conditions the A-10 faces.
BUT...the idiots who come up with these mental flatulence ideas will never be in harms way.
OTHERS will ALWAYS suffer for their feel good brainchildren.
I've worked both aircraft. One can't do what the other does. I don't grab the table saw when I need a keyhole saw.
Give the A-10s to Army. I say that as a former zoomie.
/johnny
Hmmm... F16 in a “low slow taking ground fire” mission.
What could go wrong?
Didn’t a certain Jordanian pilot recently discover the downside of carrying out that particular mission in an F-16?
You can’t fix STUPID.
Have every Air Force senior officer's evaluation be done by the ground commander he's supposed to support.
The A-10 is and always has been the Infantrymans best friend. I do not understand the Air Force thinking on this.
Odungo is behind this...for sure. Anything that gives the US tactical advantage, HE WILL try to destroy.
“What are the AF officers at the Pentagon smoking? Total disregard for the lives of US soldiers.”
No, they are simply being forced to bow to the decision by Congress to cut their funding to the point where whatever program is no longer funded is going to be something which is vital. This means single-purpose aircraft must take second place in priority to multi-purpose aircraft, no matter how superior the single purpose aircraft was for its mission. The only solution is to restore the funding for both the single-role Close Air Support (CAS) mission of the A-10 and the multi-role mission of the F-16 fighter-bomber.
Nope, this is just the continuation of a 40 year old AF debate on the merits of using the A-10 for battlefield CAS of our troops at the battle front vs using fast moving strike aircraft like the F-16 in the deep interdiction mission to attack the enemy and destroy them and their supply chain deep behind the enemy lines with a goal of stopping them from ever reaching the battle front.
For some peculiar reason, many within the the AF see this an either - or/ one or the other solution making decision decision when the more logical answer is that wee need both to win a war.
Given that the Air Forces latest and greatest new airplane has the word “strike” as it's first descriptive name, it's easy to infer who has the inside track on the latest iteration in the Air Forces's ongoing CAS vs Deep Interdiction internal doctrine debate.
Two different aircrafts built for different purposes.
But they knew that.
So. WTF W H Y??!!??!
“slow-flying A-10.......”
When you’re the toughest SOB on the block you don’t have to run.
I don’t know how we are ever going to win a war. We spend all our time and effort fighting with each other. The Regular Army and the National Guard fight each other. The Marines fight with the Army. The Air Force fights with the Navy. The Navy fights with the Marines. The civilians in the Department of Defense fight with the uniformed members. The Infantry fights with the Tankers. The helicopter pilots fight with the Infantry. The politicians fight with the entire military. The Warrant Officers fight with the Officers. The Special Forces fight with everyone. The Democrats fight to get the military’s money. The female Soldiers fight with the male Soldiers. The Service Academy Officers fight with the ROTC Officers. The old Sergeants fight with the young Officers. Your peers fight with you to sabotage you so they can get that top block rating.
Clausewitz wrote about reducing “friction” in your Army to win wars. We just keep increasing it and wondering why we have so many problems.
The enemy is over there. Quit trying to shoot the friendlies.
Hell, they should have kept the F-14 Tomcat as well.
A truck being replaced by a sports car .....
Sounds like politics over war-fighter needs. Once again.
A factor to be considered is our enemies won’t all be like ISIS, the Taliban, etc. We could face China at some point, and the A-10 would not survive very long by itself in a sophisticated, layered AA environment. It’s a tough airframe, but it’s not that tough. Need something stealthy for a sophisticated AA environment. Or a jammer escort. Or a SEAD escort. The stealthy F-35 could get in and get out without the need for a jammer or SEAD escort.
In that type of environment, the A-10 would have to wait for availability of another airframe (jammer or SEAD) to accompany it on every mission until enemy air defenses have been totally degraded. Without that availability, it’s sitting on the ramp. Not so with the F-35.
I like the A-10, and it works great in the skirmishes we’ve had lately with enemies who have no Air Force or air defenses. We have no guarantee our next enemy will be so accommodating.
Obama has replaced the U.S. Air Force top Brass with Morons